How do you know Obama’s gay marriage declaration was for political purposes only?

Disclaimer – this post isn’t about whether or not you support gay marriage. I don’t care. The post is to discuss the politics of the declaration by President Obama and to make a point. If you want to rant about the pros or cons of gay marriage, go somewhere else.

That said, how do you know it was done explicitly for political purposes?

Timing for one. The word was out that big donors who happened to be gay were withholding big bucks. Declare. Problem solved.

Additionally – and this is no surprise – the bonus of declaring not only freed up that money (which apparently isn’t as easy to raise this time around) but it offered another distraction from the economy, the debt and the dismal Obama record. Every day that the economy, debt and the rest of his record isn’t being discussed is a good day for Obama.

Strange, too, that Obama declared gay marriage a civil right, but insisted it should be left to the states. His political allies are scratching their heads over that one — it’s a civil right or it’s not — but the media haven’t pursued that incoherent angle either.

That’s right, he declares it a “civil right” but then shunts it off to the states to “decide”. Really? Obviously we can argue all day about whether or not it is a civil right, but that’s irrelevant to the point here. Hedeclared it a civil right.

And he also said that what we call ‘civil rights’ should be decided at the state level.

“No civil rights for you!”

Uh, okay.

George Wallace and Orville Faubus were within their rights as the heads of their states to deny blacks their “civil rights” if that’s what the people of their state wanted?

We all know the answer to that.

So this is how our resident “Constitutional Scholar” makes some political hay without any intention of actually doing anything to back up his declaration (even while offering an incoherent reason that should be the talk of the media … uh, yeah, that’ll happen).

20 Responses to How do you know Obama’s gay marriage declaration was for political purposes only?

Classic Alinsky. Cover all sides of an issue by declaration…contradiction is GOOD. It FOSTERS confusion, and allows Pres. Dog Breath to pwn the donors who heard their particular pitch on the dog whistle.
(See how I worked “dog” into that…?)

Course it’s political, and not just political, intended to work with other things they had in the pipeline. Joe got ahead of himself on what probably HAD been discussed, and being fresh on what limited mind he has, he blurted it out well ahead of schedule leaving Obama and their planned attacks on Romney in a pickle.

Look at the timing – The Post’s Gay Bullying story, right AFTER the declaration? Really? I mean, obviously they were putting that story together for a while, you don’t just dig that up and roll with it in 2 days, the guy who the story claimed spent his life regretting the anti-gay hair cutting, who then claimed he’d never even heard of it until a couple weeks/months (we’ll use Holder time here….) FROM the Post reporter indicates THAT was in the works. So, this was intended to go off later, and the White House village idiot let it loose too soon. And Obama, figuring he could get away with it, as he ALWAYS has before, ran with it.

Tell me it didn’t work to shake the money loose. But it’s NOT so good in other areas, and I’m betting they counted on the bullying gays narrative to have gotten enough traction by the planned time to discourage people to boldly come out against what Obama said.

Now, I think they miscalculated on THAT all along, but I do think they figured it would be something people would hesitate to do since it makes you, sort of, a ‘racist’ if you don’t believe in same sex marriage, AND you say so.

He had to go with this, and he wasn’t ready for any executive mandates to go into place, but he HAD to respond because the same sex base was suddenly in a furor thanks to Joe.

The media did do something about it. The Washington Post ran a hit piece on Romney that maybe he bullied a kid maybe because he was gay and that one of the guys regrets that he took part in it all this time or at least until the Post reminded him of it a few weeks ago.
Case closed.

The gay mafia and the major gay advocacy groups had given it up for Obama in ’08 and have awaited the major paybacks: they got the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and they got Holder and the Justice Department doing nothing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. They also got the usual sympathetic gay appointments and gay friendly this and that. The trinkets of power.

Then came the marriage referendum in North Carolina, and the mafia et al. were pumping a lot of money in there, but they probably knew two-three weeks out that they were going to get clobbered. They were angry, as they always are, but they turned the anger on Obama. They wanted something that would blunt the big loss in North Carolina. They were probably also starting to worry that the whisper to “wait until he is re-elected” meant that all the money would be for nothing because his numbers suggested that he could very well lose. They demanded action.

Obama sent out Arne Duncan and Joe Biden to test the waters and things looked pretty clear, so after the North Carolina measure passed, Obama came out and blunted the effect by saying he supported “gay marriage” and that made everything wonderful again.

But I think it was the one real true mistake he has made (not counting the health care thing which he knew would hurt him but was too important to gaining more power over Americans to let it fail). It crossed through the national political discourse at the wrong time, in the wrong way, and he looked bad. It was transparently cheesy and this time there was no “watch my hands” effect where people simply yawned and took the post-hypnotic suggestion.

The way November stands now is that uncommitted or voters who are only leaning one way or the other are now looking for reasons not to vote for Obama and reasons to vote for Romney. This is already and old election, five and a half months before it happens. We could know by Labor Day who is going to win. People are sick of politics. They’re getting sick of Obama. I know the *one* way that the Democrats, who I have taken to calling the human sacrifice and sodomy cult, could make a big comeback between Labor Day and the election, but I’m not talking. (Remind me to tell you what it is after the election.)

Don’t go all mysterious on us.
We all know the way. It’s simple. They resurrect Ted Kennedy from the grave.
Any God who can bring back Ted Kennedy (and obviously then must like Democrats) is not to be messed with.

Wait, wait, wait….they didn’t build the BIG DIG in Boston to be a massive tomb complex and bury him in some weird Democratic ritual with a bunch of beetles so that NOW the reason we’re supporting the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt is because THEY have the Book of the Dead that will be needed to bring him back? Tell me that’s not what this is.

Now any google searches on Obama & gay will no longer give you anything about Larry Sinclair and his accusations. It will give you page after page of Obama and gay marriage. Obama being the ‘first gay president’, I assume was to be taken like Bill Clinton was the ‘first Black president’. These things don’t refute anything about those prior accusations but basically muddy the pool and provide a ambiguity and distraction about Obama himself.

Sinclair himself seem to lack credibility, but recently we found out obama’s past girlfriend in his biography was a ‘composite’ (aka fake). Funny twist on that, they quickly found a woman who claimed to have a relationship with Obama helping to fill an unusual void allowed by the media in Obama’s personal history. She is treated like they discovered Bigfoot.

This former girlfriend it seems is white. Then I wondered if the void is because Obama has a string of white girlfriends in his history. This would be damaging to his base. The ‘white benefactor’ racists of the Democrats could revert back to the their suppressive racist klan roots, but I think that would be a small effect. The real damage would be among Black women. They wouldn’t end their support, but the fire would be gone in a hurry.

So these stories just dilute the issue and doesn’t eliminate it making it less likely to get to the root of either explanation for this apparent, rarely permitted by the media, void in Obama’s personal history.

Who would have thought that Barack Obama would go all out to be the “Rick Santorium” of the Left.
They told us that you couldn’t run on social issues, but I guess when your economic and foreign policy portfolio looks as bad as this Administration’s, you are willing to try anything. To call Obama a “clusterfuck” would be a disservice to true “clusterfucks” out there.